Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences

Peer Review & Research

What research has been done to support/refute this theory? Peer reviews are good, nice and useful. But until someone is willing to attach data, it's just a thesis. Uberhill 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Categories

This is unrelated, sorry about putting it in this section. The Steven Wiltshire drawing of the "Tokyo Skyline" looks an awful lot like Paris, including the Eiffle Tower. Maybe it was mislabeled? I'm just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.90.25 (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo has a broadcast tower that looks very much like the Eiffel Tower; the drawing is likely ok. Uberhill 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

1 Verbal-linguistic, 2 Logical-mathematical, 3 Visual-spatial, 4 Body-kinesthetic, 5 Auditory-musical, 6 Interpersonal communication, 7 Intrapersonal communication, 8 Naturalist. While I can understand the granularity of the first five categories, it seems to me that this is analogous to handing out "first prize" to everyone in a race. User:bradbeattie

Whether you agree with the theory or not has no bearing on the content of the article, just to make sure. Falcon 20:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outside of elementary school teachers, who have no training in this field, and those people who teach courses in Multiple Intelligences for profit, I sincerely haven't really found anyone in the teaching profession who accepts Howard Gardner's claims as correct. Most people who do research on the subject don't have a problem with some of his practical claims (its never a bad idea to do different things to keep kids interested in learning); however most people who do research on this subject say that the basic theory is flawed at the core, and more importantly, has not been shown in peer-reviewed studies to have any real effect on education. (All of his support seems to be anecdotal so far.) The scientific and professional criticism of his MI theories is actually quite extensive. Since the article was lacking any content at all in these areas, I have added a number of references, and a synopsis of their positions. RK

Well, I'm a high school teacher with no special connection to Gardner's work, but I see strong evidence for its effectiveness and validity daily. Mind you, I teach in a school system that includes a rich curriculum in just about all the intelligences; some children do well in each, it is very, very rare to have a student who does extremely well in more than 4 of Gardner's areas, and probably we never see a student who does well across the board. There appears always to be some area of strength, some area of weakness, for any student - in contrast to the monolithic intelligence theory, which would suggest that someone strong at one would be strong at all.

I suspect, however, that if I taught in a school system that focused largely on the two intelligences we usually single out - verbal and logical/mathematical - I wouldn't notice the range of intelligences students actually possess. Hgilbert 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review & content

Mainly: An entry on a theory like this is meant to present the theory concisely, clearly, coherently and comprehensively. Secondarily: It may present a little discussion or comparison on related or contrary theories, but only to point out main differences. Falcon is right. RK is irrelevant.

There is no place for any peer review, no matter how brilliant or supported by a thousand research. That peer review belongs elsewhere. Otherwise, I can come up with a peer review if I don't agree with your theory, and when will it end?

In like manner, disputes or doubts about the whole or parts of the theory, including how it was derived and how it can or cannot be applied, should not be part of this page, or we will never get past discussion. User:Frank A Hilario 0850, 27 January 2006

On the contrary I believe that whether or not you agree is very realavent! If you convince somone that it is bogus, or that it is a good system by giving your point of view, then poeple can decide whether to depend on it or disregard it. After all, isn't the article for the facts and the discussion for your own opinion?(I'm very sorry if I put this in the wrong place i'm new and not sure where would be best.)

There are numerous factual errors and omissions, which suggest this wikipedia entry is in desperate need of review and editing by more knowledgeable individuals. For example, there is no mention of the dozen-plus criteria, some rather specific, that Gardner uses to distinguish whether something is an intelligence. Similarly, it is false to report that Gardner claims people are equally intelligent. I don't have particular feelings about the theory, but the scope of accuracies is painful. I suggest this page be closed down until it is clarified or rewritten.

I agree that this article needs to have omissions filled in and further review and editing. Have you heard that Wikipedia is written by human beings such as yourself, who don't have the time to write a complete, well-written encyclopedic article about this article? (If I am incorrect, and you do have the time to re-write the entire article without omissions, please do so).

If you can help fill in at least one of the omissions, please do so.

If you can specifically point out a particular omission, please do so. ("Another important part of this theory is ..."). The two omissions you mentioned have now been filled in. (Well, it only mentions "8 criteria". Are there others?). Any other omissions?

If you can point out a particular sentence in error or misleading, but don't have time to re-write it to clearly state verifiable facts, please tag the end of the sentence with {{fact}}.

If you can point out a particular structural error, please tag with one of the tags mentioned at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources.

While certainly it is unfortunate that this article currently has problems, other now-excellent Wikipedia articles have shown that it is possible for fallible and time-limited human beings to grow a tiny stub into a complete article and refine it into a excellent article. With your help, dear reader, I have high hopes the same will happen to this article.

--68.0.120.35 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Other theories

Whilst Gardner's theory presumably is correctly called the theory of multiple intelligences, he is not the only one to indicate that there might be aspects of intelligence which aren't covered by basic intelligence tests. Such tests are primarily concerned only with reasoning. Charles Handy, in his book The Hungry Spirit, covers several kinds of what he calls intelligence, and his list is not identical to Gardner's. I'd be interested to know whether Handy's ideas were derived from Gardner or arrived at independently. The following list is lifted from http://www.dbu.edu/graduate/newsletter/2001_march.html:

• Factual Intelligence - encyclopedic knowledge
• Analytic Intelligence - reasoning and conceptualizing
• Numerate Intelligence - mathematical skill
• Linguistic Intelligence - verbal and communication skill
• Spatial Intelligence - an ability to see patterns in things
• Athletic Intelligence - physical coordination
• Intuitive Intelligence - aptitude for sensing and seeing what is hidden from most others
• Emotional Intelligence - self-awareness, self-control, persistence, zeal, and self-motivation (based on the book Emotional *Intelligence by Daniel Goleman)
• Practical Intelligence - common sense
• Interpersonal Intelligence - social and leadership skills
• Musical Intelligence - the creation, production or performance of music (as defined by Webster's dictionary)

In another book by Handy, Understanding Organisations, he provides another list which (from memory) includes:

• Mechanical intelligence - that which for example enables some people to disassemble and re-assemble a motorcycle without using a manual. This might be the same as Practical intelligence, though the definition is somewhat different - a mechanically intelligent mechanic doesn't necessarily have great common sense, particularly if he rides his bike too fast!
• Physical intelligence - what Beckham has, enabling him to out wit as well as out-kick other footballers, and some might quip that this is the only form of intelligence that he has. Presumably this is identical to Athletic intelligence above
• Interpersonal intelligence - such as what good salespeople have - might be the same as Emotional intelligence, though again the emphasis is different
• Intrapersonal intelligence - such as what poets have - might be the same as Intuitive intelligence, though yet again I think it's slightly different, since someone who is deeply in tune with their inner self isn't necessarily particularly intuitive when it comes to the external world
• Visual intelligence - such as is possessed by artists, and enables them to see in such a way as to be able to produce art. This is definitely an attribute that can be trained, as anyone who had been to life drawing classes might testify. I think this is quite different from Spatial intelligence, also I think called non-verbal reasoning, because it's not about observing patterns - rather it's about seeing the nature of objects and their juxtaposition, which is subtly different. I'd hazard that a brilliant artist won't necessarily be any good at non-verbal reasoning tests.

Handy also makes the observation that musical and numerate intelligence often go together, i.e. that people who are good at music are often good at maths, and there may be other correlations and negative correlations between the various types of intelligence.

I would also add another type, which may be covered elsewhere, and that is the type posessed by autistic savants, whose abilities in certain respects often confound the experts. I'm thinking of the ability to discern large prime numbers, which was observed by Oliver Sacks, and eidetic memory, which can also lead to astounding achievements. Sacks's studies of brain-damaged people (covered in his article The President's Speech) also indicate that there is a type of intelligence to do with aphasia (or was it agnosia? - I get the two muddled) that is discernible in stroke victims (who have lost the ability to understand the spoken word) and, he claims, dogs!

It's aphasia, but aglossia is the loss of speech, also common. Eidetic memory isn't intelligence, it's just a trait, like absolute pitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Since there is evidently much material about on this subject, I'm wondering whether the Theory of multiple intelligences page should be expanded to include others' ideas on this subject, or whether this theory is really Gardner's preserve and hence that there should be a different page to cover others' ideas. Thoughts anyone? Matt Stan 19:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taking a cue from other articles on controversial theories, I think it would be best to keep the theory itself and criticisms on a single page. Perhaps an organization like 1.introduction (balanced) 2.theory (Gardner's position only) 3.criticism & defense 4.significance, such as use and acceptance in practice.

On an unrelated note, I know the primary and seconday schools I attended used Gardner's theory and a few of my teachers actually taught it. When it was taught, it was always presented as uncontroversial fact (much to my annoyance). I would be interested in seeing information on how widespread this phenomenon is. Is it unique to United States public schools? Is it even that common in United States schools? CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 08:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Whilst Gardner's theory presumably is correctly called the theory of multiple intelligences, he is not the only one to indicate that there might be aspects of intelligence which aren't covered by basic intelligence tests."

You are missing the point, and seem to have fallen for Gardner's deliberate misrepresentation of critiques made against his pseudo-scientific claims. All legitimate scientists already agree that IQ tests only test some parts of human ability to think. Gardner's "rebuttals" are shameful strawman attacks against criticisms that no actual scientist has made in the last 50 years. Gardner's model, designed to increase his personal cash flow, is that anything a student happens to be interested in is now relabeled as a form of "intelligence". Nothing Gardner has written in the last 10 years has actually addressed the substance of the many, many critiques made against him. His rebuttals are hand-waving redefinitions of words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by an-unknown-user (talk • contribs)

It's disappointing you would use such personal attacks in this forum; clearly your objectivity on this matter is very much in question. You also seem to be missing the key logical point. You are classifying everything that does not meet the traditional interpretation of "intelligence" as "interest", when clearly the inherent cognitive precondition of the person has strong bearing on even the most atraditional "intelligence".

Clearly the biggest problem with recognizing these different kinds of intelligence is the difficulty in assessing what portion is inherent mental predisposition/ability and what is environmentally produced. As science grows, its likely these limitations will be resolved.

Still, since that equation has by no means even been erased from the limited conceptions of intelligence espoused by traditionalists (as the racist conclusions of these test illustrate), that should not be an inpediment toward accepting the inherent logical and social utility of it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.68.130 (talk • contribs)

Well since an overarching characteristic of Gardner's theory is that it is idea-rich, yet data poor; it seems very necessary to include a section that discusses the arguments against this theory. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to include other theories/philosophies in this page, since the 'theory of multiple intelligences' specifically relates only to Gardiner's body of work. This page is only meant to reflect Gardiner's point of view, and so it might be better for you to write a page about your other collected 'theorists,' one to represent each of their own unique bodies of work.

As far as the use of Gardiner's theory in your school, this actually surprises and concerns me. Currently, the use of Gardiner's theory in pedagogy is of limited efficacy, at best, and could actually represent a negative effect to students when their teacher's turn from a better supported curriculum to one designed with Gardiner's ideas in mind. As it stands now, any clinical or academic use of Gardiner's theory 'gets by' only based on the perception of its intuitive validity, rather than being well-supported by the body of research on the subject of intelligence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by an-unknown-user (talk • contribs)

By this notion, any rational idea which makes a great deal of sense from a standpoint of assessing social utility would be nulled until such time that the inherently conservative scientific community catches up. The world would be a better place if it made determinations from logical social utility rather than the painstaking eons it often takes the general scientific community to accept a notion whose validity is logically apparent from the beginning and when the social utility is great is accepting it immediately. An appropriate analogy would be global warming.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.68.130 (talk • contribs)

Ned Herrmann's Four Quadrant Model

Herrmann_Brain_Dominance_Instrument is another related theory which four different types of thinking skill analytical, sequential, interpersonal, imaginative. --Pfafrich 15:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PoV Dispute

What precicely is the PoV dispute over? If there is not dispute, please remove the tag. Falcon 20:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category

This article belongs in Cognitive Psychology, rather than human development.whicky1978 15:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

Category (Response)

It belongs to both, the theory of multiple intelligenes relates to cognitive development; this then could be related to human development, since it is implausible for human development without the development of human cognition.

74.184.100.154 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Other models

There are other models that subscribe to multiple intelligence, besides Garderner's. This article makes it seem that Gardner is the only one.whicky1978 15:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, a balanced article should at least also refer to the theories of Thurstone and in particular Guilford. Lambiam 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an article on Gardner's Theories of Multiple Intelligences. That is the title OF HIS THEORY , and that is what this article is written about.

Pov Dispute (cont.)

It seems that the argument here is that Gardner's MI theory is unproven or that it receives more attention than it deserves. I personally find value in his theories in terms of explaining to learners the prestige of professions associated with being intellectual versus more blue collar occupations.

Why not mention the additional, associated theories at the bottom of the page? It seems to me that someone just has a bug about Gardner. The MI theory is his, it remains as equally valid as the others that were mentioned; perhaps, they each deserve their own page.

On this debate, Gardner (2004) himself notes, "As one who has thought intensively about multiple intelligences, I am more aware than most of the defiencies in that theory; yet, I am far from declaring that my own theory has been refuted or that I have adopted a new holistic, unitary, or genetically determined view of the human intellect."

Gardner, H. (2004) Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people's minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. p. 196.

---

Here is the POV dispute, it comes from the [archive]: "This article seems rather one-sided. It is almost uniformly critical of the theory, and the single contributor who has written most of it seems fond of rhetorical flourishes that have no place in a neutral source. This article needs to be cleaned up by someone more persistent and knowledgeable than myself. ":Seems to me that what it needs is an advocate for the theory. As it stands, the POV is pervasive, but mere copy editing wouldn't do enough to improve it.Dandrake 08:39, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) ":Also could do with the "To do with..." sentences being turned into full sentences. ··gracefool |☺ 09:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Steven McCrary 17:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This article struck me as very critical from a distinctly antithetical pov. There are many in the gifted 'community' that do support this theory, as well as other intelligence theories. One of the main functions of the intelligence 'community' is to research intelligence, its causes/effects, its types, its strengths/weaknesses, etc. so that gifted children (and adults) may be given the support they need. Whatever their 'type of' intelligence. It does not strike me as a white-collar/blue-collar debate, because the perception that there are fewer intelligent, blue-collar people and fewer unintelligent, white-collar people is a fallacy. The theory should be presented neutrally and the support/criticism should be presented also, neutrally.

Awareness and Wisdom

I believe sections for social awareness or perhaps, awareness in general as an intelligence as well as wisdom be included in the "types" of intelligence.

those are interpersonal, and intrapersonal, respectively. Prometheuspan 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted the multiple "?" as it was implicit that the statement was in fact a query.*

206.40.119.252 14:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"interest", stereotypes about the disabled, original research

Thx for the article, and i write from a general psych background, not as an expert in this area, nor invested in the theory at hand. But there are problems here, which lead me to suspect the no-no of original research.

• I edited the criticism (in opposing views, paragraph 1) that Gardner equates intelligence with "interest", changing that to "ability", because it's clear that people can have interests in things that they aren't or can't seem to be good at, and ability is probably the part of "interest" that's meant. I haven't read in the area in a long time, so it's possible that Gardner is this sloppy -- but i'm not writing the article, and there's no citation for this. I am familiar with the criticisms mentioned, but they fit the equation of intelligence with ability/talent/etc.
• Then i read down and saw more specifically on "interest", but the problems with the article were getting bad enough that i frankly don't trust it's accuracy. So i still challenge and ask for citation supporting that gardner says that interest itself (apart from its correlation with ability) = intelligence.

As for problems:

• One bullet read "Once someone adopts Gardner's position, the entire idea of studying intelligence is meaningless." This is obviously false, since gardner adopts gardner's position and gardner studies intelligence. And many others, since this view, even if fatally flawed, is admittedly popular. I'll wait for citation re interest before removing that. Hopefully i got the rewrite of the above sentence right.
• I removed the paragraph on the disabled: "The existence of students with any kind of handicap proves that even in Gardner's scheme, many people cannot be equally intelligent. Sternberg and Frensch write "it seems strange to describe someone who is tone deaf or physically uncoordinated as unintelligent." In Gardner's system, people not interested in nature have zero natural intelligence, people who are deaf have zero musical intelligence, etc."

Problems are (and again, cite away if you think i'm wrong):

1] "any kind of handicap" would include folks who play basketball better using a wheelchair than most people who can walk/run/etc. The point here is that being "physically uncoordinated" is not the same thing as being "handicapped". Note that once again the actual criticism cited does make sense: it critiques poor ability (uncoordinated) = unintelligent.

2] "tone deaf" is also a valid criticism because in its narrow sense (inability to distinguish pitches) it is a lack of one kind of musical ability; likewise there is a broader lack of ability in its far more widely used sense, because very few people described as "tone deaf" are actually unable to distinguish pitches; they are typically just very lacking in musical appreciation/etc. But, "[...] people who are deaf have zero musical intelligence [...]" is another completely false stereotype. (Pardon me: it's getting very late and i just want to finish this and i am bugged by it...I'll try to chill.) People who are "deaf" (which commonly and legally incl people who may have some hearing with or without amplification) can in fact be quite musical: even those completely without hearing may be very accomplished at rhythmic music making, and enjoy the vibrations they can feel from their own and others' music, incl pitch differences.

Beethoven was an accomplished composer who had a progressive hearing loss. His deafness disability (a preferable term to "handicap") did not have any negative impact on his obvious musical intelligence Doctorgail 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Doctorgail

Why is disability preferable to handicap? They mean the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.178.98 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

4] "In Gardner's system, people not interested in nature have zero natural intelligence [...]". I ask for a citation. I bet this is not true; it's just too stark and silly. "Zero" again. Zero?

• Oh, and please site "This article, by Steven A. Stahl".

So once again, i suspect original research = winging it. This article deserves more. Thx for the good parts, hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't like that reductio ad absurdam, how about this one? In Gardner's model, a person who is paralyzed and must use a wheelchair is less intelligent than someone who can bounce a rubber ball on the floor and throw it through a hoop. When Kobe Bryant comes up with a Unified Field Theory, I will accept that he's more intelligent than Steven Hawking. Until then, Gardner's book is ludicrous politically motivated pop psychology, nothing more.

= Expert tag?

Something i forgot last night: before i found more problems (and got triggered about the disability stereotypes) and wrote the post above, i had changed Relationship to Education paragraph 2: "This line of argument has infuriated those in the Gifted and Talented community because" as a false/POV generalization. Now i'd like to add (related more to original research) that this paragraph does not mention the significant support for gardner in the gifted advocacy community becuase the theory highlights how there are more ways to be gifted (vs the more narrow "intelligent") than just IQ/g/etc.

Perhaps an expert tag would be appropriate for this article, since it seems to be an issue of knowledge of the area, and not just POV (which seems to have been worked on somewhat). Sorry i'm not that expert, but hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would really like this source: intrapersonal = not really an intelligence

so i read this : "Others question whether Intrapersonal intelligence can really be considered an intelligence, and claim that it instead should be considered more a personality trait, and a set of desires."

I think it is a great statment. I would really appreciate if the user or any user having these same feelings would be willing to hook me up with a refrence or two. I would appreciate it. I am interresteding who specifically, their famous, or well known scientific names, question whether II can be really called an intelligence.

thanks! I really need some authoritative names! Just for me, i dont much care about the article heh lol. serious. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 09:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Intrapersonal is definitely a form of intelligence, uniquely seperated from other types of mental functioning, and specifically related to accessing altered states of consciousness, handling emotions, knowing the difference between the self as is and the self as related to, and other such things. People with high levels of intrapersonal intelligence are the common cure fro groupthink. Prometheuspan 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want a general, layperson level review of multiple intelligences and the place of intrapersonal intelligence, Gleitman (1999) should tell you everything you need. --Davril2020 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

—→== Multiple Intelligences vs. Learning Styles == What I find particularly of note in this MI entry is the fact that the article quote by Stahl is about learning styles and not multiple intelligences - a completely different theory altogether - making for a confusing line of logic. user KS 11:17, 27 February 2006

Ah, well, you see, a person with a high score in a specific types of intelligence would have a learning style skewed to that type of intelligence. Prometheuspan 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This distinction has always confused me. I'd love to see this destinction expanded in the article. --Salix alba (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Gardner explained it this way in his FAQ (which anyone editing this article should probably read first): "Speak of styles, speak of intelligences, but don't conflate the two if you can help it." --68.251.254.90 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, that is not the definition of a "learning style": for reference, see, Dunn and Dunn's model of 'learning styles'. Learning styles are based more on the environment in which the individual is learning and their interaction with it . . . is it too warm? Do they need to move around while they are intaking information? Do they work better with peers than alone? THAT is a learning STYLE - completely different than a Multiple Intelligence. user KS (MEd in Educational Psychology, PhD candidate in same) 6:14, 5 May, 2006

KS, environmental factors influence a learners preference. It there anything to distinguish between a learner's preference and his/her learning style? Or are they the same? tonypelle

Tony, I think that the performance is what determines what their learning style is. Most of my students would prefer to learn in groups, because it is funner, but that doesn't mean that will be the best for them. I think it is funner to learn in groups but I learn better when I learn alone. Lindsy Thomas

Tony ... Learning styles are as varied as learning abilities. Given each of us on and given day will learn differently than we might have the week before. Individual background, 'noise' during the transfer of information, lack or availability to verify information content, etc., all lends to preference and style of learning. Varied levels of transfermation of information to be learned is the key to teaching a 'group' of different levels, whether the group is two or twenty two. Preference is the learners choice, if they are aware of how they choose to learn. Style is determined by the teachers conclusion of how a particular student learns best. CapriFaulkner

Tony, Interesting discussion going on here, I use wikipedia all the time but I had no idea that this was going on at the bottom of the pages! I will be checking back. Ronda

Tony, I think a students preference and learning style is determined by what is being studied. A learning style is the ability to learn through doing something, listening, seeing, moving, doing or touching. As I think of my own preference and learing style I find myself doing all of the learning styles depending on what I am studying or learning. And yes some environmental factors (TV, music, people talking) definetly affect my preference for learning depending on what I am trying to learn. I feel this would be similiar for most students. Gisele

Unsupported basis

This theory is not supported by professional psychologists specializing in the field of intelligence. Specifically it is seen as pop-psychology. At best it is viewed as a marginally developed theory of learning styles, as KS stated, at worst it is seen as unscientific, politically motivated egalitarianism primarily for the purposes of justifying affirmative action, mainstreaming of mentally retarded individuals, or both. previous edits made on 11:24, April 11, 2006 by user:72.161.141.188. please sign posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion and its biases have been duly noted. The last time i was playing the game, I recall types of intelligence being well covered in no less than 5 or 6 textbooks. An interesting thing about Psychology, it is allmost all of it "Theoretical". The classical objections to the Theories do not generally consist of any of the things you mentioned. Prometheuspan 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) please place signature at the end of posts, thanks SteveMc 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It also seems as if the initial poster was working to further a specific personal agenda (ironically, a bias). His notions of egalitarianism and "pop-psychology" are not cited and are thus circumstantial personal leanings, it seems. Whether he agrees with the direction and internal "motivation" of the theory is unimportant; Gardner's ideology is widely accepted and practiced by many educators. Moreover, all of science is premised on observable theories which are all inherently biased (see, among others, Cophenhagen Convention Effect).

Just an addendum; well noted SteveMc Thanks, Aaron 12.8.2006 206.40.119.252 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

It doesn't matter whether the *content* article is accepted as truth or completely valid, only that the theory be presented from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a peer review system; it is an encyclopedia. It's not the job of people (who are not masters of the field) to attempt to refute a theory that are not completely familiar with. Rather, take out the massive negative bias, and make a note at the top saying "this is a theory, this is only a theory, it is not literal truth, do not take it as such" or something. Just a note that this is not being presented as 'fact' but as a report on the theory 'x'. I don't believe creationism is real, but I don't demand that the wikipedia article on creationism be pulled!

Remember, folks, Wikipedia is not a web forum for debate, it's an encyclopedia. Please treat it as such.

previous edits made on 02:31, April 24, 2006 by user:64.105.36.31. please sign your posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If one would separate a theory from its scientific basis and evidence, or lack thereof, then one runs the risk of any uninformed person to embrace that theory without understanding the ramifications. Gardiner should be commented upon for his lack of scientific support and many detractors, because to leave this information out could cause improper decisions to be made. For example, a teacher may base his or her entire lesson plan around a theory they read in wikipedia without realizing how limited the evidence of efficacy for this theory really is! previous edits made on May 5, 2006 by user:71.64.200.214. please sign your posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If a teacher really "base[d] his or her entire lesson plan around a theory they read in wikipedia", or any other encyclopedia, this teacher can't be helped. I also don't hold teachers in high esteem, but i at least believe they have more than one source for their eductational program, and, even more important, that they are not confined to an ENCYCLOPEDIA. An encyclopedia, in most if not all cases, is used by a layman in the particular field, as a professional is bound to have some more specialised publication at hand. I agree that the criticism should remain in the article, but your exemplification is entirely the product of your imagination.----83.189.52.78 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Original content?

Although I have not read widely in Gardner, neither have I ever seen him refer to "Thought", "Sensate", and "Communicational" groupings. Is this from his work or a bit of original content? --65.146.234.98 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are right, as i also have never heard these words in Gardners writings. As i also have not read all his works, especially the newer ones, this remains a suspicion.----83.189.52.78 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would add that I have never heard the definitions of extropersonal and interpersonal intelligence referred in Gardner's writing. It was my understanding that interpersonal intelligence, as described, was originally intrapersonal intelligence. Have there been recent changes to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.106.179 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical/mathematical in reading or writing

I was just classified in school as logical mathematical( I got six out of ten tied with verbal linguistal, but there was only 1 person in mathematical so they sent me there) ANyway it is in reading class and the suggested types of studying in my group is doing word problems,calculating things etc. I was just wondering what that would help with reading?( I just realized that it also said logical so maybe would sit around and try to find plotholes.) Logical/mathematical, UNITE!

To whom it may concern

The part where people think that he was wrong to his categories them as "intelligences" is wrong. I strongly feel that it was right of him to eliminate the general 2 category view: Smart, not so smart. Although I think that it was a little exaggeration to say everyone is smart at something, he has got the right idea. There is more to being smart than getting good grades i mean hey, can you sove complex anagrams in 10 seconds flat? If you can than good for you! But does that mean you get good grades in history or social studies or social science or what ever your school calls it? NO! Because although when you hear the word genius the first names that come to mind are probably einstein, edison, or steven hawking, you are forgetting picasso, and mozart,and beethoven. Look the point is that although I think that being good at sports meaning you're smart is a stretch, his system helps people find their best way to study everywhere.

You "strongly feel?" Learn to think, and get back to us.

---

Hi, I'm just a random surfer. I think you should move the criticisms of the theory to a separate page and link to it. Currently, there are so many criticisms embedded that it is hard to grasp what the theory is! It is incredibly distracting to read a sentence, and then have the very next sentence say essentially, "but this isn't so!"

I usually take the moderate view on things, but I agree with the theory to some extent. Take me and my brother, for example. I am an excellent writer, and can delve into politics and world history.

Yet he can't, and his writing is sub-standard. Of course, his mathematical abilities are much higher than mines. I

I once took an IQ test (actual, 8 hour long test) and found that my mathematical abilities are VERY poor, yet my reading and writing abilities are incredible. Soo.....yeah. There's a hint of truth into his theory.68.160.238.103 (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just made extensive revision

I came across this article, read the comments here, and edited as best I could to address most of them.

Full disclosure: I went to a school that used MI as the cornerstone of its teaching for 10 years. I'm not a blind supporter of it, since like most things there are both good and bad aspects, so I tried to give the article a bit more balance. I've read Frames of Mind, Multiple Intelligences: Theory into Practice, and Intelligence Reframed, so I think I have a pretty good handle on the theoretical side. There are definitely problems there, but most of them seemed to be included already, which is why I focused on some of the responses proponents of MI make, so as to give both sides of the debate.

A few times the criticisms were based on just plain misunderstanding the theory, though. I tried to clarify those sections without being too clearly biased against them, but I'm not sure I succeeded.

Regarding the intelligences versus learning styles, while I think it's important to differentiate them, most of Gardner's criteria for describing each intelligence include different ways of learning or approaching new information, so I did include that.

As a side note, the thing that really surprised me about the article as a whole was the underlying assumption that you fit into one type of intelligence and that's it. There's a huge amount of overlap between the intelligences-- Gardner himself said you use several at once for most activities-- and most applications of the theory in schools advocate developing those intelligences you aren't as naturally strong in. Which gives me semi-unpleasant memories of having to study for spelling tests by making up songs, but that's beside the point.

At any rate, I hope this fixes some of the problems others have noted, and doesn't cause a whole bunch of new ones.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calente (talk • contribs)

Recent work on opening section

I want to thank Calente and Hgilbert for your contributions, which greatly improved the opening section of the article. The article was sorely in need of that sort of work, but I was disinclined to take it on myself. It was a real pleasure building on what you accomplished with your edits -- I think the article is really shaping up nicely now.

Question for Hgilbert: I haven't read Gardner recently and don't have any of his books at hand. When you say "symbolic formulation of the area treated by each proposed intelligence", is that taken straight from Gardner, or is that your own phrasing? Whichever, I don't think it's entirely clear what is meant by that phrase. It might benefit from either rephrasing or elaboration (or both). Cgingold 13:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This passage was indeed unclear; I have attempted to clarify the wording. Hgilbert 01:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Only a theory?

Can we be very careful in our use of language please. A theory is a very high level of scientific idea which is supported by experimental evidence. Gardner's Multiple Intiligences are no more than a hypoothesis as there is no real evidence to support the assertions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.131.112.58 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

What exactly is a theory ? Wye can’t ‘those theory’s put together’ not establish an ‘understanding’ that is also developed together, ‘as one’?

Some autistics, as a matter of fact, do have that kind of ’oneness’, and actually can develop their ‘missing connections’ (compensate) till they understand all information (signs) they notice by senses. Senses often are extremely developed (not have bin subjected to an ‘explicit (conscious) awareness’), and a un-conscious but also complete 'recognision' automaticly senses 'new information' (signs, not-known or in terms of 'clues').

From ‘insiders’ point-of-view, it is just a matter of not-controlling, but to make the crucial changings possible inside consciousness, without ‘obstructions of thinking’ (blockings).

To get in control of consciousness, logically consciousness most not ‘control’ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeXY (talk • contribs) 13:00 14 January 2007

uncited material

I have excised the following: An article in The New Republic notes that Gardner's system has not been accepted by most academics in intelligence or teaching.

George Miller, the esteemed psychologist credited with discovering the mechanisms by which short term memory operates, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that Gardner's argument boiled down to "hunch and opinion" (p. 20). And Gardner's subsequent work has done very little to shift the balance of opinion. A recent issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law devoted to the study of intelligence contained virtually no reference to Gardner's work. Most people who study intelligence view M.I. theory as rhetoric rather than science, and they're divided on the virtues of the rhetoric.

as uncited:Hgilbert 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

An Interesting bit of Research on successful use of MI theory

I'm just an Elementary Ed student and I am not claiming that MI is the end all be all of intelligence theories but it certainly has its place in education. (I personally consider it more 'a means of knowing') This is an interesting article about research in integrating MI and Bloom's Taxonomy for differentiation of instruction

Noble, T. 2004 Integrating the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy with Multiple Intelligences: A Planning Tool for Curriculum Differentiation. Teachers College Record 106 (1), 193–211. Retrieved from EBSCO host April 2007

72.201.30.253 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Joolz

Merger from Naturalist Intelligence

There was a separate page on "Naturalist Intelligence" at the Wikipedia page of that name. Lots of redundant information, and only about three paragraphs long, so I've merged it into this article. --Jackson 15:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Synonym?

"Gardner identifies kinds of intelligences based upon eight criteria. His eight criteria for describing something as an independent kind of intelligence (rather than merely one of the skills or abilities included in a kind of intelligence, or a synonym for, or combination of other kinds of intelligence) include"

This sentence, in the beginning of the article, slightly puzzles me. What on earth does "a synonym for" have to do with various kinds of intelligences? What I'm trying to say is that a synonym deals with WORDS, so I think it is inappropriate to compare mere words with various intellectual labels; it's like comparing apples and oranges. I don't know If what I'm saying is making much sense to anybody, but I think a more appropriate word would be analogue, not synonym.

What do you guys think?--71.135.180.9 (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual relativism

This is mentioned twice, and the second time without any references. The second mention should be removed. It's redundant. --Deleet (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Intelligence Theory and Test .

Is there any way to instill these multiple skills among the people (youth/adolescent/secondary education level students etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirmanie (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Logical-Mathematical: Citations?

Don't you think this paragraph needs citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.141.51 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This article (as of 25 Dec 2008) is mechanically substandard.

I quote a section of the article that needs repair:

They require fine motor skills that require dancing, athletics, surgery, craft and other movement functions. In artificial Intelligences programs are being developed to mimic the movement of athletics through games and other computer related items but they will not take the place of the actual movement of this intelligence physically. Careers which suit those with this intelligence include athletes, dancers, actors, surgeons, builders, and soldiers. Although these careers can be duplicated through virtual simulation they will not produce the actual physical learning that is needed in this intelligence.

The task of repairing text like this is difficult; "They require fine motor skills that require dancing, athletics, surgery, craft and other movement functions..." is likely beyond repair by anyone other that the author.

By the way, I personally find great value in Gardner's multiple intelligence hypothesis; "proving" and/or "disproving" the hypothesis in whole or in part leads to more knowledge about intelligence. Unfortunately, this article, as it exists today, is so egregiously substandard mechanically that I can only totally distrust its decipherable factual content.

GrouchyDan (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean GrouchyDan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.93.25 (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC) edited to add that i see the quote now. yes it is not the clearest wiki text, but i don't see why it is beyond repair or why you claim that it was in such an unclear mana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.93.25 (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Main Intelligences Listed

Please somebody add existentialism in the list of intelligences.

It's one of the main intelligences he talks about, but I do not know enough to write about it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.185.4 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Existentialism (Response)

There is no such thing as this type of intelligence [in Gardner's theory]. He only talks about the eight types that are written about in everyone of his books; never does existentialism appear. 74.184.100.154 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

---

IQ comments

I guess Gardener was right.but we must put a defintion for intelligance frist and then we will be able to standars to messure people intelligance.I think the way that make gardener put his theory based on a diffrenet diffention of intelligance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.34.33 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

bobo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.243.41 (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrible Writing

Much of this article has overly complicated language that seems to have more to do with sounding intelligent than giving a clear explanation of the concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree:

"Visual-spatial; This area deals with the ability to visualize with the mind's eye, so to speak and spatial judgement.Careers which is suit those with this intelligence include, architects. "

Writing is substandard. Also the text says there are eight basic types of intelligence, while it then elaborates on nine. 86.80.116.169 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)